Hobbit: Overly detailed 5K and HFR failing to please

[adkimery]

No, that's pretty much the opposite of what the theory says.

The theory, from what I've briefly read, talks about lower frame rates and their possible aid in suspension of disbelief and I mistaken brought HFR into the mix as well. Is that what your cryptic response means?

I'm always a bit surprised with what the average person doesn't notice. Especially with online playback that's all over the place. It may have been shot at 24 or 30fps or whatever, but due to joe blow's crappy computer and internet connection, it's effectively playing back at 12 - 18 fps.

I asked a room full of people once if they noticed anything strange about the incredibly choppy youtube video we were watching... and I got a lot of blank stares with "what do you mean?"

I'd love to see some serious frame rate studies, it'd be really interesting.

I bet expectations has a lot to do with it. By that I mean people might be okay watching a choppy YouTube video because they know that sometimes YT videos are choppy (and they are free) but if they just paid $10 to go watch a movie at the local theater I doubt they would be as accepting of poor playback performance as that would be out of the realm of normal expectations.

Perhaps it's how Red deals with the HFR, it's DR, it's sharpening filter, DOF, how it deals with highlights, or how Jackson has graded it.

I was thinking about this last night as I was watching The Hobbit (2D, 24fps). I saw the first Hobbit in 3D HFR and didn't really care for the look (although by the end of the film I hardly noticed anymore). I will say I like the HFR for the fight/high action scenes it really keeps the image looking clear (especially in 3D). Now, back to the new Hobbit I just saw. I was actually disappointed in texture (for lack of a better term) of the image. It looked more like how I remember the HFR version than it looked like film.

The most familiar images are high frame rate. People have been familiar with high frame rate since video cameras were invented. Turn on the weather channel. Everyone is familiar with that look. When's the last time you heard someone say, gee, I wish movies looked like the weather channel.

It's not that people aren't familiar with higher frame rates. It's that for about a century movies have been shot at 24fps and with the advent of TV and YouTube videos movies were elevated to the gold standard of visual media. People associate the visual signature of 24fps with quality and tradition. Same with shallow DoF and widescreen.

 

[David Jimerson]

The theory, from what I've briefly read, talks about lower frame rates and their possible aid in suspension of disbelief

Yes, which is why it makes perfect sense that you don't mind a high frame rate when watching sports, but do mind it when watching narrative fiction.

As you described it:

It basically goes that at lower frame rates our brains know what we are watching isn't real so it just kinda goes with it but at higher frame rates things look very close to real but not quite real which makes the experience less enjoyable.

That would not make you inherently frame-rate agnostic.

Suppose you were watching Any Given Sunday, and when the football game scenes came along, the frame rate switched to 60 fps. Wouldn't that bug you? Even though as a "sport," the motion would be appropriate, but because you know it's not real, the faster motion would take you out of the fictional setting.

 

[Gillvane]

It's not that people aren't familiar with higher frame rates. It's that for about a century movies have been shot at 24fps and with the advent of TV and YouTube videos movies were elevated to the gold standard of visual media. People associate the visual signature of 24fps with quality and tradition. Same with shallow DoF and widescreen.

Movies are the gold standard because they look better. It's not like you couldn't make a movie that looks like the weather channel if you wanted to. People don't mind less than gold standard for the weather channel, but they don't want to pay 10 bucks for it.

 

[High1ander]

I just watched the Hobbit 2, in HFR 3D (saw first one too like that). It still looks like crap, I think set designs and VFX all look weaker in HFR. Which isn't weird because more motion blur makes it easier to hide flaws in CGI.

Some of my friends couldn't notice at all that the movie was in HFR, like they couldn't say it looked different. To me, it was like watching in-game footage from some game at times.

 

[Gillvane]

I just watched the Hobbit 2, in HFR 3D (saw first one too like that). It still looks like crap, I think set designs and VFX all look weaker in HFR. Which isn't weird because more motion blur makes it easier to hide flaws in CGI.

Some of my friends couldn't notice at all that the movie was in HFR, like they couldn't say it looked different. To me, it was like watching in-game footage from some game at times.

That's interesting because Jackson says it looks better this time around:

“So what I did is work that in reverse,” says Jackson. “When I did the color timing this year, the color grading, I spent a lot of time experimenting with ways we could soften the image and make it look a bit more filmic. Not more like 35 mm film necessarily, but just to take the HD quality away from it, which I think I did reasonably successfully.”

By tweaking the picture digitally, he says, he was able to keep the advantages of HFR, he says, but tone down the hi-def-video look.

Just read the comments if you want to see what most people think about teh HFR look.


http://variety.com/2013/film/news/peter-jackson-hobbit-3d-looks-1200941962/

 

[GaryNattrass]

Promists have been used for years and I personally always use valve amplifiers with my guitars as they sound great, analogue 24 tracks sounds far better than pro tools but as we watch and listen to most things downgraded these days anyway the $$$$$ wins as they can churn out style over substance for the masses and they consume it like sheep !

Nuff said!

 

[High1ander]

I think it might look better in 24fps and be more filmic, but I can't really tell since it is a year since I saw Hobbit pt1 in HFR 3D (and the change should be subtle), but my point is that when you "increase quality, you also increase the possibility to see flaws", because higher frame rate is higher quality. It is that motion blur is a natural softener (which hides faults), which translates to (in my opinion) that a lesser amount of motion blur requires CGI textures/renders and set design to be even better. Really, it's just focus and out of focus areas, having CGI in the background that is slightly de-focused is easier to render and looks better, than a frame that has deep focus.

Also, one scene that was really hard for me to watch was an interior fight scene, way to fast cut for 3D, I had to blink and close my eyes, because it was so jarring/irritation to watch 1 min into it...

 

[harddrive]

In the UK there's been a significant amount of TV drama at 50Hz framerates

Like what? 25p is a 50 Hz framerate, but it's almost identical to 24p. What UK dramas are shot at 50i/50p?

Go back to the 70s and 80s (probably most of the 90s as well) and the situation was if it was electronic, it was PAL - so 50 fields/sec.

And most BBC drama of the period was exactly that. Some was all film - but not a lot, likewise some was all electronic, location included. But the majority of the drama series and serials which went out in prime time would have had the studio sequences recorded electronically (interlace PAL), and the location parts shot on 16mm film. Examples? Onedin Line, Barchester Chronicles, Poldark, Blake's Seven, Tenko - and of course Dr Who. It's most of the major programmes of the time.

Now I'm not going to say that Dr Who in the 1970s didn't have it's faults - but they seem far more to do with lowish budget for sets and special effects than any worries about framerate......

Did the mix of studio and film match well? Errr, no. Not really. But it wasn't really something that even fairly critical viewers worried about - and the same with frame rates. That's why I went on to say "This all would point towards conditioning - people just like what's most familiar." In the UK people have grown up used to TV drama at 50 fps as well as 25 fps - I don't think that's true in the US. Which is why I think the whole subject is a far bigger issue there than in other countries.

If you accept that 24fps originally came about simply for reasons of cost (in the 1920s), then it was the same for the use of electronic here. The independent TV channel tended to shoot much drama on film, often 35mm. It cost more - but the big advantage was (at the time) it was much more saleable abroad. Shot 25fps it was obviously fine in the UK - but telecined at 24fps was also fine in the 60Hz world without any need for standards conversion etc. Because of the charter, the BBC couldn't be seen to be spending licence payers money for other than home audiences. If sales could be made abroad as a by product - fine - but it couldn't be a primary consideration in production.

There's a lot more that could be written about all that - and I'm sure the stories of lost Dr Who videotapes are known worldwide - but the point here is that any link between quality drama and framerate is much less well defined - people are far more used to 50 fps drama.

As to the "Hobbit" then unfortunately I didn't see it, so can't comment first hand. But I don't remember hearing too much negative about the whole HFR subject in the UK at the time? Looking up what the cinemas are saying at the moment, then the HFR screenings seem to be firmly presented as the superior option - http://www.cineworld.co.uk/blog/the-hobbit-frame-rate . I can't believe they would be promoting such if the HFR screenings had been generally badly received last year?

Maybe one of the tests my hypothetical psychology student could do is observe what happened to the reactions of a "HFR hater" who has agreed to watch a lot of such material over time? Would their reaction to it be the same once the unfamiliarity had gone away?

The whole subject reminds me of a friend coming to dinner, and asking if he or his wife had anything they wouldn't eat. His wife is from Thailand, and apparently lamb is generally disliked by Thai's to a high degree. (Nothing to do with religion - I think he said they dislike the smell.) Now why? It's not a view generally shared in other countries, so I can only think it's down to conditioning. For that matter, there are some foods common in other countries, maybe even a delicacy, that I wouldn't go near. But if I'd been brought up with them as a child, it may have been a different matter.......

 

[R Hudson]

as far as the japanese go, well they also like tentacle porn.

rotflmao!

 

[Gillvane]

Here's a question. If 24 fps is just an arbitrary number, the lowest frame rate that would work with sync sound and they just went with it for budget reasons and nothing else, then how do we get to 48 fps second as the new standard for HFR? Doesn't doubling an arbitrary number get you another arbitrary number of frames per second? The science behind 48 fps would be, well we took an arbitrary number and just decided to double it? Why not 50% more frames per second, or 3x, or just a new number altogether not related to the 24fps number since it's arbitrary to begin with?

 

[David Jimerson]

Go back to the 70s and 80s (probably most of the 90s as well) and the situation was if it was electronic, it was PAL - so 50 fields/sec.

And most BBC drama of the period was exactly that. Some was all film - but not a lot, likewise some was all electronic, location included. But the majority of the drama series and serials which went out in prime time would have had the studio sequences recorded electronically (interlace PAL), and the location parts shot on 16mm film. Examples? Onedin Line, Barchester Chronicles, Poldark, Blake's Seven, Tenko - and of course Dr Who. It's most of the major programmes of the time.

Now I'm not going to say that Dr Who in the 1970s didn't have it's faults - but they seem far more to do with lowish budget for sets and special effects than any worries about framerate......

Did the mix of studio and film match well? Errr, no. Not really. But it wasn't really something that even fairly critical viewers worried about - and the same with frame rates. That's why I went on to say "This all would point towards conditioning - people just like what's most familiar." In the UK people have grown up used to TV drama at 50 fps as well as 25 fps - I don't think that's true in the US. Which is why I think the whole subject is a far bigger issue there than in other countries.

If you accept that 24fps originally came about simply for reasons of cost (in the 1920s), then it was the same for the use of electronic here. The independent TV channel tended to shoot much drama on film, often 35mm. It cost more - but the big advantage was (at the time) it was much more saleable abroad. Shot 25fps it was obviously fine in the UK - but telecined at 24fps was also fine in the 60Hz world without any need for standards conversion etc. Because of the charter, the BBC couldn't be seen to be spending licence payers money for other than home audiences. If sales could be made abroad as a by product - fine - but it couldn't be a primary consideration in production.

There's a lot more that could be written about all that - and I'm sure the stories of lost Dr Who videotapes are known worldwide - but the point here is that any link between quality drama and framerate is much less well defined - people are far more used to 50 fps drama.

As to the "Hobbit" then unfortunately I didn't see it, so can't comment first hand. But I don't remember hearing too much negative about the whole HFR subject in the UK at the time? Looking up what the cinemas are saying at the moment, then the HFR screenings seem to be firmly presented as the superior option - http://www.cineworld.co.uk/blog/the-hobbit-frame-rate . I can't believe they would be promoting such if the HFR screenings had been generally badly received last year?

Maybe one of the tests my hypothetical psychology student could do is observe what happened to the reactions of a "HFR hater" who has agreed to watch a lot of such material over time? Would their reaction to it be the same once the unfamiliarity had gone away?

The whole subject reminds me of a friend coming to dinner, and asking if he or his wife had anything they wouldn't eat. His wife is from Thailand, and apparently lamb is generally disliked by Thai's to a high degree. (Nothing to do with religion - I think he said they dislike the smell.) Now why? It's not a view generally shared in other countries, so I can only think it's down to conditioning. For that matter, there are some foods common in other countries, maybe even a delicacy, that I wouldn't go near. But if I'd been brought up with them as a child, it may have been a different matter.......

OK, you're talking about the '70s and '80s, and I agree, many BBC productions were shot on video at the time. But these days, what's 50i/50p instead of 25p? I've seen a lot of British drama in the last decade and I can't think of one.

But no one's talking about the "quality" of the drama -- writing and production value don't have anything to do with frame rate.

Also, no one's trying to convince you that you ought to like 24 fps or 25 fps when you obviously don't. We simply don't agree with the idea that 1) it doesn't matter, 2) the difference is attributable to things other than the frame rate, and 3) people don't notice or care.

 

[Razz16mm]

Here's a question. If 24 fps is just an arbitrary number, the lowest frame rate that would work with sync sound and they just went with it for budget reasons and nothing else, then how do we get to 48 fps second as the new standard for HFR? Doesn't doubling an arbitrary number get you another arbitrary number of frames per second? The science behind 48 fps would be, well we took an arbitrary number and just decided to double it? Why not 50% more frames per second, or 3x, or just a new number altogether not related to the 24fps number since it's arbitrary to begin with?

48 fps is the normal screen refresh rate for 24fps film projection. Instead of a 180 degree shutter film projectors have dual blade 90 degree shutters because 24/180 projection produced unacceptable flicker.

 

[Gillvane]

48 fps is the normal screen refresh rate for 24fps film projection. Instead of a 180 degree shutter film projectors have dual blade 90 degree shutters because 24/180 projection produced unacceptable flicker.

Ok, but that doesn't really go to the motion question does it? Why should the motion of 48 fps be the new standard instead of say, 40, or 60?

Take a look at this:

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

What looks better to you? Where's the Cinderella spot?

 

[Wesley Byram]

Ok, but that doesn't really go to the motion question does it? Why should the motion of 48 fps be the new standard instead of say, 40, or 60?

If I were to hazard a guess, it would be because 48fps can be trivally converted to 24p as a fallback by just dropping half the frames. Then, you have a 24p version of the movie that can be printed to film for distribution to theaters that might still be running analog film projectors. Further, converting 24p to other formats like 60/50i for broadcast is already a solved problem, so there's that.

If they shot the Hobbit in 60p, for example, there would be no problem with broadcast in NTSC regions, but converting to 50i would be less elagant. Same problem with converting it for film prints. 60p to 24p conversion is doable, but not ideal.

 

[David Jimerson]

If I were to hazard a guess, it would be because 48fps can be trivally converted to 24p as a fallback by just dropping half the frames. Then, you have a 24p version of the movie that can be printed to film for distribution to theaters that might still be running analog film projectors. Further, converting 24p to other formats like 60/50i for broadcast is already a solved problem, so there's that.

I think I recall them saying that specifically.

The 48 fps version won't be available on Blu-ray (or, I suppose, any other 60 Hz delivery format) as there's no satisfactory mathematical model for putting 48 fps into a 60 stream.

 

[Wesley Byram]

I think I recall them saying that specifically.

The 48 fps version won't be available on Blu-ray (or, I suppose, any other 60 Hz delivery format) as there's no satisfactory mathematical model for putting 48 fps into a 60 stream.

Makes sense.

If the studio was so inclined, they could release a 50hz version of the Hobbit for PAL markets by speading it up slightly, much as 24p is converted to 25p already.

As for NTSC? I suppose they could run it at 125% speed to conform to 60hz. As a bonus, that might do something to address complaints about the movie's runtime. Additionally, once the audio is similarly speed up to compensate, the Hobbits' and Elves' voices would sound more like what one might expect Hobbits and Elves to sound like. Two birds with one stone. :laugh:

 

[harddrive]

Here's a question. If 24 fps is just an arbitrary number, the lowest frame rate that would work with sync sound and they just went with it for budget reasons and nothing else, then how do we get to 48 fps second as the new standard for HFR? Doesn't doubling an arbitrary number get you another arbitrary number of frames per second? The science behind 48 fps would be, well we took an arbitrary number and just decided to double it? Why not 50% more frames per second, or 3x, or just a new number altogether not related to the 24fps number since it's arbitrary to begin with?

Firstly, 24fps is not arbitrary. It was ROUGHLY determined by firstly having a number high enough to give reasonable persistence of motion, then when talkies came around to having a high enough linear speed for decent (by the standards of the day ) audio. The consideration of money acted to try to keep it as low as possible. As to why it was 24fps PRECISELY, then I'm pretty sure it was down to being an easy sub-multiple of mains frequency - making engineering with synchronous motors more straightforward.

If optical sound track technology had been better initially, it's highly likely that 20fps may have been chosen instead. An easier 3:1 ratio to 60Hz mains, and at the high end of the framerate range silent films were nominally shown at .....and (the accountants rub their hands with glee) even cheaper on film stock! Bigger profits! It would have meant keeping a three blade shutter to keep the flicker down, but that would give projector compatability between silent/sound films.

Similarly, if the standard had been set by a European manufacturer, it's extremely likely it would have been 25fps, for the same reasons, but related to 50Hz mains.

Others have already answered the "why 48fps?" question. It's a substantial increase - but still manageable. (I believe the issue with even going to 48fps was not now filmstock costs, but datarates and storage.) Not only does a simple doubling make legacy issues (producing an optical print for conventional cinemas) much easier, but also it may enable easier use of legacy equipment for such as off-line editing. This may be especially true for such as timecode issues.

 

[combatentropy]

If optical sound track technology had been better initially, it's highly likely that 20fps may have been chosen instead.

I'm gonna try it!

 

[Gillvane]

If I were to hazard a guess, it would be because 48fps can be trivally converted to 24p as a fallback by just dropping half the frames. Then, you have a 24p version of the movie that can be printed to film for distribution to theaters that might still be running analog film projectors. Further, converting 24p to other formats like 60/50i for broadcast is already a solved problem, so there's that.

If they shot the Hobbit in 60p, for example, there would be no problem with broadcast in NTSC regions, but converting to 50i would be less elagant. Same problem with converting it for film prints. 60p to 24p conversion is doable, but not ideal.

Am I the only one that sees this as ironic? The argument seems to be 24fps was not the best frame rate artistically, didn't look the best, it was just used to sync with sound and save on film stock.

So, there's no need to cling to 24fps, since we don't use film stock so much now, etc.

the idea is let's replace what was supposedly only used for technical reasons and not what looks best artistically with something different, but again for technical reasons not necessarily what would look best?

24fps is used because that's the slowest that would sync with sound, so we change to 48 fps because that's easy to turn into 24 fps?

 

[Wesley Byram]

...so we change to 48 fps because that's easy to turn into 24 fps?

Yeap, pretty much. In an ideal world, it's purely up the the filmmaker to decide what he or she wants the movie to look like, but in the real world, you're constrained by the technical infrastructure that is in place for your audience to view it on. 24/25p works on everything and 48p easily converts to 24p. It's just the way the math works out. 60p might catch on, but it doesn't play as nice with 50i broadcasts as 24 or 48p.